Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational - privileged status: unchecked

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - VoxRat

1
So it turns out that missionaries/outsiders who come into these indigenous communities, sure that they have the answer to their problems, generally just end up making things worse.

Something to think about.  :hmm:
2
It's a real simple concept and I practice what I preach.
:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



:no:


Quote
For example, I really didn't know too much about what happens in clearings in the rainforest until I found that mongabay article.
What do you want to bet the mongabay guy isn't a "brain on Darwin?"
3
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
:ironicat:    

bookmarked
5
Honorable Robert M. Persaud, Guyana's Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment
     "Guyana is globally recognized for its unique biodiversity and for having one of the lowest deforestation rates in the developing world..."

Dave Hawkins: 
     "Hold my beer*..."


* or raw goat milk, as the case may be
6
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.
::)   Right.  The whole reason you can't make a case is that mere normals can't keep up with your Brilliant Mind, Running Circles Around them.  So, in an act of condescending mercy, you're going to spare their "heads exploding" .

Textbook raging narcissism.
7
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
Hmm. I sense a tantrum coming.
Has it finally dawned on you that I'm right about this topic? That opening up the rainforest canopy a bit isn't going to hurt it at all? And that plenty of good stuff will immediately start growing, in fact stuff that herbivores like to eat?
I guess the irony of this juxtaposition of posts will sail right over your head.
9
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
Not saying that but I suspect most can be.
So I guess you'll want to rethink your knee-jerk reaction here:
...
Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.
10
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
11
I really love you guys. Really I do. This is way better comedy than Seinfeld. Or whatever the current hot comedy show is. I don't even know.
So.  Content-free buffoonery it is.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, not every mineral ion in the Amazon escapes leaching. How do they get replaced?
12
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
The science doesn't say anything about whether it's a "good thing" or a "bad thing".
Do you have something to say about the science, or only content-free buffoonery?
13
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
14
When someone wrote the soil guide for the USDA 20 years ago, saying thir ideas aren't part of the mainstream is utterly delusional.
It's really important for dave to imagine himself as part of the small but feisty Rebel Alliance, bravely taking on the numerically daunting mainstream Evil Empire.
15
Most farming in the USA is still the type of farming that uses chemical fertilizers and thus destroys soil life.
That may be.
But obviously it's not because the USDA's "fake scientists" have been telling them to.
17
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:


Wonderful. I'm glad that they are taking notice of her work.
"taking notice"?
She wrote their "soil primer" 20 years ago.

So you want to maybe rethink that idiotic "armies of fake scientists"  slogan?
18
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:

19
:rofl:

you didn't click the link, did you?
20
But alas, the fertilizer salesmen with their armies of fake scientists are a powerful force indeed.
You mean like the USDA ?
21
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all.
non sequitur.
Quote
Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
non sequitur + straw man

22
It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Good lord.
Do you have the slightest clue how pathetic this is, Hawkins?
23
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.
::)  

Typical content-free Hawkins "refutation".
24
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
25
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?
Click the link, dumbass.